<quoted text>Preaching is fine, however many Christians cross the line by trying to enact their beliefs into law.I'm fine with some christian preaching that abortion is wrong. I'm completely against it when they try to outlaw abortion or verbally assualt women at abortion clinicsI'm fine with some christian preaching that same sex marriage is wrong. I'm completely against it when they try and deny the same rights heterosexual couples have to homosexual couples.I'm fine with christian kids praying privately in a public school, however, I'm completely against a teacher/administrator led prayers of any religion at a public assembly.its really quite simpleDON'T BELIEVE IN ABORTION, DON'T HAVE ONE.DON'T BELIEVE IN SAME SEX MARRIAGE, DON'T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX

Wow, aren't you the obedient little pagan. Why not go sacrifice a dog. No one wants to hear you preach your pagan dogma.

Also, men statistically work longer hours and don't take as much time off to have and take care of children.

Oh PLEASE; THAT's your excuse for justifying UNequal pay for men and women who do the SAME JOB? It's utter NONSENSE, especially since there are women in the work force who choose NEVER to have children.

Yea, not only is it against nature itself, but our country should be giving fanilies tax incentives, which does not apply to roomates. We should encourage strong fanilies, now more then ever, all hell has broke loose on the family unit.

Luckily for all of us, Gtown, YOUR regressive religionist ideas AREN'T forced on the rest of us. Otherwise, we would still be living with the oppressive 19th century laws which gave women NO rights whatsoever, and when African Americans were still slaves.

As to same sex marriage, it has NO effect whatsoever on a straight person's marriage. If you CHOOSE to make it such an issue for yourself, that doesn't count as an "effect."

Whose posts are these below? All missing from the thread going into last Friday when we noticed LNM's posts were gone from the conversation.284323284329284238284199284176284184284153284164284117284063284075(this is where we began to notice PC posts were gone)People should check and see if their pages match. I look at the top post number on the last page and go back a page at a time. You can see differences right away (last number on last page a 2, last number on prior page a 4, etc., twenty per page, should stay even).I really hate censorship!

<quoted text>No.You did contradict yourself. You don't get to make it my fault you contradicted yourself. No amount of explaining is going to change the fact that you contradicted yourself.You wrote:"Viability of an already born infant is also about POTENTIAL, and when doctors see a potential for that born infant to survive with medical help..."In a prior post, you said, and I quoted you ver batim:"That's not the same as viability of a newborn infant, because the newborn infant is already ~outside of the womb~, so it would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help."

No, I didn't, you just don't understand the obvious that I didn't think needed to be stated.

If a [fetus] is viable, then once removed from it's NLS (the womb), and helped with ALS, it will be able to survive and continue to survive on ALS.

If a [born infant] is viable then, even if it's on ALS for a time, it will eventually be able to survive without it.

Viability of a fetus and viability of a born infant are 2 different issues, with different factors as to what constitutes each being "viable".

Anyone who believes viability of a fetus has to do with being born and surviving without ALS is wrong.

<quoted text>I displayed no "hypocrisy."I simply did not display an attitude that you approved of.As usual, you try to reduce everyone else's posts to your motives; I'm not trying to "prove" anything about you--you do that adequately enough yourself.I've said that there's enough "obnoxiousness" to go around for both camps, yet all you're concerned with is that "perceived" obnoxiousness that is directed at you.The only thing I was trying to "prove" is that you're deliberately misconstruing the arguments PC posters have when they argue for reasonable "restrictions."As I said before; nobody's calling a fetus a "z/e/f."http://www.topix.com/forum/nyc/T833PCEP80MM49...Stop trying to "twist" that.

John: "I simply did not display an attitude that you approved of."

Wrong, you displayed hypocrisy. You purposely made mention of what you considered was obnoxious coming from me, while ignoring what comes from you and the PC camp that's obnoxious.

It's not displaying an attitude I approve of when it's you doing it, but obnoxious when I do, hypocrite.

John: "As usual, you try to reduce everyone else's posts to your motives; I'm not trying to "prove" anything about you--you do that adequately enough yourself."

You mean you had no motive in saying, "'Lily,' you are such an obnoxious personality ..."? like those who have obnoxious personalities in the PC camp, that you call "my friend" when you post don't exist? Which was the hypocrisy I was showing you, to which you respond: "I've said that there's enough "obnoxiousness" to go around for both camps, yet all you're concerned with is that "perceived" obnoxiousness that is directed at you."

No, John. I wasn't talking about what was directed at me, but what [you ignored] about what comes from your PC friends.You're not fooling anyone who isn't a PC bonehead with your bullshit.

John: "The only thing I was trying to "prove" is that you're deliberately misconstruing the arguments PC posters have when they argue for reasonable 'restrictions.' "

Wrong. Either PCers believe women should have "personal autonomy" and "medical privacy" as they've called it and believe a fetus shouldn't have equal rights to a woman, or they don't. At viability, it's still a fetus. Can't have it both ways without contradicting themselves.According to the PC logic of what constitutes personal autonomy and medical privacy and rights a woman should have, restrictions remove it all. I haven't twisted a thing.

<quoted text>My God woman! You're just as obnoxious as ever. Nothing ever changes with you. No growth. No maturation process. Yes Lily, you are a victim. A pitiable victim. And your superiority over all other humans is duly noted. Have I stroked your ego sufficiently now?

Oh, and here comes Eddie, who hasn't been here in how long, and first post is to me about my supposedly being "obnoxious", also ignoring the obnoxiousness coming from PCers. Both John and Eddie made no mention of the most obnoxious PC posters: CD, Cpeter, Foo etc. No, those people are ignored by both John and Eddie, and John calls Foo "friend". How sweet.

What a coinkidink that both John and Eddie think I'm obnoxious, both made sure they posted to me letting me know they think I'm "obnoxious", they did so posting to me with their own obnoxiousness about my supposed obnoxiousness. I can't make that stupidity up.

I haven't seen either posting here in awhile, I haven't posted to or about either of them, both post to me about the same thing; what's supposedly so "obnoxious" coming from me, and neither sees it from any other PLer or from anyone in the PC camp.

Their senseless stupidity couldn't be more obvious if they had tried for it to be.

<quoted text>True. Haven't some of them actually admitted to reporting posts and trying to get some PL's bounced ?I've demonstrated nothing but a willingness to answer and answer directly any question directed at me. Certainly cannot say the same for others ( Bitter, Tinker Bell, etc ). Now all of a sudden I'm going to be the one having posts removed ?

Exactly. Doesn't make sense. But then again, I've long ago given up on expecting anything sensible coming from PCers here.

<quoted text>Theoretically I guess so. I believe even the SC in Casey vs PP acknowledged that the limits of viability were moving earlier in pregnancies as medical technology advanced.But something like an artificial womb would change everything...and not just the concept of viability. Abortion would likely not even be an issue anymore.

"But something like an artificial womb would change everything...and not just the concept of viability. Abortion would likely not even be an issue anymore."

You hit why his "artificial womb" hypothetical is irrelevant. "Artifical womb" has nothing to do with the abortion issue. It has nothing to do with "viability" in the abortion issue either.

The limits of viability have already changed because of medical advances, but STO's example of a supposed "viable" fetus at 8 weeks gestation was so senseless, I refused to go there with him.

<quoted text>I have to respectfully disagree. Abortion would certainly be an issue, because there are women that wouldn't want to have their ZEF transplanted. It would open another option, but it wouldn't eliminate many of the issues themselves.

If a woman is going to go the route of using an artificial womb, not only would she not have to have her developing child implanted into their own womb, but she wouldn't want to abort her child.

To suggest she would want to abort is like suggesting a woman using a gestational carrier would have the gestational carrier abort their developing child.

I disagree. Using an artificial womb would remove the need to use her womb. Also, if a woman agrees to using an artificial womb, her desire to abort would be non-existant. Obviously using an artificial womb means she wants the child, so abortion would not be an issue. No more than it would be using a gestational carrier.

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.